|
You said the release of 3.0 was the salvation while the OGL was a problem. They were released simultaneously, so how can something so detrimental be part of the rise from bankruptcy?
3.0 itself was very, very flawed. Hence the emergence of 3.5 3 years later. The OGL allowed it to go through a needed evolutionary process, as well as bringing in 3PP support so that WoTC wasn't carrying all of the burden of innovation themselves.
3.5 didn't lead to the resurgance of D&D - 3.0 did. And that was produced by WotC. The OGL was very much a side-show in this as most of the original stuff was terrible. The flaws of the system really had very little impact to start with as they didn't (and probably still don't) impact on most people anyway. You are trying to rewrite history by suggesting that the increase in interest in D&D had nothing to do with WotC. It did, it had everything to do with it. The OGL maybe had an impact subsequently but I very much doubt they had anything like the effect of simply launching the new version of the game, especially after the collapse of TSR and the disappearance of D&D from the shelves.
The OGL also meant that the production of 3e-compliant materials didn't have to stop when WotC moved on to a new edition. This clearly has been detrimental to WotC. Whether this is bad for the hobby overall is debatable, but it is certainly bad for them.
As to the 2nd point, you act as if rule design is the costly part of the game. Writing content for the games it part that is labor intensive, which was where the freelance market of the OGL helped tremendously once freelancers learned the rule systems.
The WoTC rules team was largely Cook, Tweet and Williams. This isn't manufacturing, you are wildly overestimating R&D cost. Additionally, WoTC already had the internal logistics with FLGS from Magic, and brand recognition from the fact that they bought the brand.
Salaries are the major cost for a lot of service companies. With R&D you have people sitting around producing stuff which cannot immediately be sold. It's sunk cost. No, it isn't drug R&D but then I suspect the budgets at WotC dpon't run to billions either. As a proportion of their cost base I doubt it was trivial. After all, they very quickly sack them once they have used them.
The OGL was what brought more people in, and more systems in. It meant when they released Star Wars and Modern, everyone already knew the system. I personally didn't buy a 3.5 book until I was into the game for over a year, since I could get most of the rules online. Then I spent hundreds of dollar on books
They are having problems now because they abandoned a successful product because they wanted everyone to move to another system, starting over with new books.
I'll take your word for that. OGL had no impact on me at all after my initial experience.
They could have accomplished this by putting out a revision rather than a replacement. They didn't, because they thought they had squeezed all the money out of 3.5 they could get.
And imagine the fury that would have caused.
Paizo is under all of the same "restrictions" WoTC was. If anything the OGL they use is more open, as the rules supplement books (always a cash cow of WoTC) are also open. And of course, Paizo has none of the brand advantages and had very little of the logistical infrastructure.
Yet last two quarters...
The OGL was why 3.0 succeeded, and why WoTC was able to take a bankrupt company and make them profitable.
Keeping it is why Paizo was able to stand up to the 800lb Gorilla, and why the 800lb Gorilla is on it's 2nd reboot in 5 years and 3rd major revision in 10.
I'd be curious to know your sources for sales, since I know neither Paizo nor WotC publish theirs.
Paizo has no brand advantage? I suppose producing Dungeon and Dragon for years means nothing, then? But generally Paizo supports it products a lot better - i.e. with quality adventures - which is something that WotC has struggled with ever since the advent of 3e and the decision that publishing adventures was something they didn't want to do. In my view this was a terrible decision that has impacted on them ever since. It fostered a load of rivals, one of which has since become dominant. (Ironically, of course, this rival actually had its own licence with WotC rather than using the OGL, but let's not let reality get in the way of a good story.)
|
|
You said "Personally I don't care for Essentials much but frankly I've been able to ignore it and still enjoy the stuff which has come out of WotC before and subsequently."
This wasn't a viable option with 4E as they ceased to support the old product and 4E was incompatible with 3.5.
There is little geek fury about essentials because nothing was lost from the game before. Essentials adds in the same way the Beginner Box adds.
Clearly not - Zmar was trying to suggest there was similar wailing and gnashing of teeth over Essentials and I was telling him there wasn't, and why. It wasn't an appropriate comparison.
WoTC attempted to kill an old product line because to many other were also profiting from it. Rather than taking the "A rising tide lifts all of us" approach, they cut off their nose to spite their face.
The whole discussion is about why WoTC is putting something new out that appears to be designed to replace 4e.
They took the essentials approach and it didn't work. Why? Because when they abandoned OGL, they left the market behind. Until that changes, they will remain off on an ever shrinking island to themselves.
Why the did in 3.5 is debatable - that's just one reason. Maybe they also wanted to create a better game than 3.5. After all, even Paizo revised it.
I really don't think the OGL matters. They could still outsource through licencing deals that don't require the rules being made freely available in perpetuity. Support is what matters. And let's wait and see what 5e is like before we confidently predict its demise, and why. WotC acted like a typical monopolist and got complacent. I get the impression they aren't like that any more, and they probably have better financial resources than Paizo as part of a larger group. And, speaking personally, I've reduced my spend on Paizo stuff as I'm finding it increasingly boring and unreadable. That's probably just me but they may be beginning to reach saturation point. Their sheer output may begin to tell against them. Time for a new edition?
|
Again, had the OGL never existed then there would be no 3.x-compatible anything to stick with. 3.x, like OD&D-2e, would be just another dead edition, and would certainly not be alive and competing with D&D's current edition for market share.
Of course, because 4e used the GSL, it will eventually be much more dead than 0e-2e. They can be re-created using the OGL and the SRD...4e cannot. And since it's fairly dependent on DDI, which eventually will be turned off (or switched entirely to 5e material), that doesn't bode well for it's post-5e lifespan either.
Again, had the OGL never existed then there would be no 3.x-compatible anything to stick with. 3.x, like OD&D-2e, would be just another dead edition, and would certainly not be alive and competing with D&D's current edition for market share.Of course, because 4e used the GSL, it will eventually be much more dead than 0e-2e. They can be re-created using the OGL and the SRD...4e cannot. And since it's fairly dependent on DDI, which eventually will be turned off (or switched entirely to 5e material), that doesn't bode well for it's post-5e lifespan either.
I don't know about that. Open Design and other 3PP that do 4E stuff might still go through with producing materials for 4E after "the next iteration of D&D" comes out. And what led you to believe that they (WotC) will stop supporting online content such as the compendium and CB after 5E? Espically since they explicidly stated that those tools will still be available? Aside from snarky comments or pessimistic options of the compnay that is?
When you make something up and attribute it to someone as part of your argument, that is the very definition of a "straw man" Snorter.He's not saying that all the people who disliked 4e did that. He's saying that some did, and that's what it looked like. Frankly, that is what it looked like. You can tell us we're wrong all you want, but we've experienced it firsthand. We witnessed it. So accuse us of arguing against strawmen. We don't care. We'll just tell you that you're incorrect, and you're going to have to leave it at that.
Scott, you apparently have the same lack of understanding of the definition of terms that snorter has.
I repeat myself, when you make stuff up and put it in the mouths of people who don't exist especially when you put it in QUOTATION MARKS you have committed the very definition of a straw man.
Defend the indefensible all you like. That's all you've really been doing this whole thread anyway, you may as well do it for yours and snorter's inability to understand the meaning of a term that has a well-known meaning.
I learned from a Reliable Source (Margaret Weis) that someone by the name of Monte Cook is writing Fifth Edition. You know what I say to that?
*Takes a look at 4th Edition and . . . *
FUS RO DAH!
* blasts 4th Edition off the planet with the Theme for Skyrim playing in the background. *
The theme for Skyrim would only make 4E appear better than it was, but it was nice of you to suggest.
Palyed 1E when it came out (yes, I'm old) and 3.5 until my eyes bled. After playing 4E and feeling like I contracted the plauge, I came to Pathfinder, where I'm happy. I'll look/playtest 5E just to look at it, but honestly don't see myself leaving my new home with Path.
Here's my take on WotC's marketing regarding 4e versus Paizo's marketing with PF, the impression I got, and the differences therein.
Note I said "my take" and not "facts." This is what I came away with in a nutshell. Paraphrasing of course, although some of it may sound familiar...
WotC: "You're not having as much as you think you're having, so we changed some things. But don't worry, the new game is better. Why is it better, you ask? Well, because we said it was. Geesh."
Paizo: "Okay guys, what aren't you having fun with? What can we do to make our game more enjoyable and fix what isn't fun?"
And now, WotC is doing a playtest asking for feedback. Boggles the mind how actually speaking to your fans up front can affect your product and reputation. Note I made no implication of "offending players" or "who's outselling who", because those points have been beat to death way, way before this thread even came about.
But, in WotC's defense, they wouldn't have made 4e non-OGL unless they had a reason to. Maybe it was overconfidence in the brand name, maybe it wasn't. Maybe giving away their ruleset came back to bite them on the tail when it came to making a profit. Bottom line, NONE of us(unless you're hiding something) know the real numbers, production costs, overhead, etc.
This was how the edition change-over felt for me. Maybe some players agree, most won't, so whatever. I'm not going to be so bold and make sweeping blanket statements for generalizations of gamers like some posters here are prone to do, this was just how I felt. One company insisted I was having badwrongfun, while the other company asked for extensive input and hands-on testing before publishing the finished product. Sign of the times, man.
I learned from a Reliable Source (Margaret Weis) that someone by the name of Monte Cook is writing Fifth Edition. You know what I say to that?
*Takes a look at 4th Edition and . . . *
FUS RO DAH!
* blasts 4th Edition off the planet with the Theme for Skyrim playing in the background. *
The irony here, being that Skyrim is like the 4e of the Elder Scrolls series. They stripped away the bulk of the number crunching and made a streamlined game focused on adventuring, introducing a new system(Perks) akin to 4e's Powers; and the hardcore Elder Scrolls fans have reacted pretty much like unhappy 3e fans did.
Personally? I love Skyrim. The series needed some fat-trimming and streamlining. I just miss spell-making.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You didn't believe 4e was a commerical failure for wotc for the longest time ... and that clearly was the case.
I'm sorry, but what? Even if the ICv2 data showed the complete market picture, which it doesn't, 4E has to be consider a commercial success. Being the #1 RPG for 3 years in a row and the #2 for 1 year is the kind of commercial "failure" that every other RPG company in existence would love to have. I thought about listing some examples, but since I can't think of a single game company that wouldn't want that it seems pointless.
A commercial failure is a product that fails to make a profit. 4E has been very profitable for Wizards of the Coast. One of the things Paizo does very well is produce a ton of books. I have nearly everything they produced that says Pathfinder on it. That takes up more book shelf space than my official 3.X D&D books. That's a ton of product in half the time. So if there were equal numbers of Pathfinder fans and 4E fans, and each bought exactly 1 book of everything produced, Pathfinder would show more sales. But that doesn't make 4E a failure; every book they produce makes a profit.
Just because they've decided that they can make more profit by launching a new game that expands their market doesn't mean their previous product was a failure. A failed line gets cancelled and shelved for a while.
You didn't believe 4e was a commerical failure for wotc for the longest time ... and that clearly was the case.I'm sorry, but what? Even if the ICv2 data showed the complete market picture, which it doesn't, 4E has to be consider a commercial success. Being the #1 RPG for 3 years in a row and the #2 for 1 year is the kind of commercial "failure" that every other RPG company in existence would love to have. I thought about listing some examples, but since I can't think of a single game company that wouldn't want that it seems pointless.
A commercial failure is a product that fails to make a profit. 4E has been very profitable for Wizards of the Coast. One of the things Paizo does very well is produce a ton of books. I have nearly everything they produced that says Pathfinder on it. That takes up more book shelf space than my official 3.X D&D books. That's a ton of product in half the time. So if there were equal numbers of Pathfinder fans and 4E fans, and each bought exactly 1 book of everything produced, Pathfinder would show more sales. But that doesn't make 4E a failure; every book they produce makes a profit.
Just because they've decided that they can make more profit by launching a new game that expands their market doesn't mean their previous product was a failure. A failed line gets cancelled and shelved for a while.
I agree with this. The only reason I buy Paizo products is for their campaign setting, not the Pathfinder rules. I often wonder how many 4th edition fans like myself contribute to Paizo success by buying their fluffy rules lite Player's Companions and Campaign guides for Golarion than actually like of the 3.5 ruleset. Horror Fantasy, Oriental Adventures, Pirates, all these things I like and Paizo is putting out the fluff to support it. Dosen't hurt that its somewhat easy to port them to 4th edition. Almost like they design their products to be used that way.
When you make something up and attribute it to someone as part of your argument, that is the very definition of a "straw man" Snorter.He's not saying that all the people who disliked 4e did that. He's saying that some did, and that's what it looked like. Frankly, that is what it looked like. You can tell us we're wrong all you want, but we've experienced it firsthand. We witnessed it. So accuse us of arguing against strawmen. We don't care. We'll just tell you that you're incorrect, and you're going to have to leave it at that.Scott, you apparently have the same lack of understanding of the definition of terms that snorter has.
I repeat myself, when you make stuff up and put it in the mouths of people who don't exist especially when you put it in QUOTATION MARKS you have committed the very definition of a straw man.
Defend the indefensible all you like. That's all you've really been doing this whole thread anyway, you may as well do it for yours and snorter's inability to understand the meaning of a term that has a well-known meaning.
We know what a straw man is. You're just misusing it. But that's fine. We really don't need to convince you. You can scream, "STRAW MAN!" all you want, but the point stands: some people reacted like that, and it had an effect on how things were presented going forward.
You're wasting your breath, Adamantine Dragon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, because 4e used the GSL, it will eventually be much more dead than 0e-2e.You'd be surprised what can be recreated under the OGL.
There's already OD&D-2e retro-clones, and if you really look at 4e and broke it down, you could recreate much of it under OGL 3.X rules.
4e may appear vastly different on the surface, it may play differently, but the mechanics wouldn't be impossible to replicate under OGL.
Which of the malicious generalizations in this thread are yours, again?
I wouldn't call any of the generalizations I've made "malicious". That implies a certain intent. A couple of us noted that, among other things, a certain segment of the 3.5 player base tended to be over-entitled and over-invested in D&D, traits that contributed to both the initial overreaction to news about 4e's development and then to the chronic spread of misinformation over the next few years.
I apologize if I wrongly thought that you were singling us out, your post just happened to fall in the middle of that discussion.
I would argue that this group felt mostly entitled to D&D being a smooth continuity. Personally, 4ed felt like an entirely different game, one that reluctantly used aspects of the older games, while taking a lot of effort to make us feel bad for wanting that. Your statement here is sort of along the lines: calling players entitled and "over-invested" pretty much makes the point that you are dismissing their viewpoint.
They're allowed their viewpoint. What they aren't allowed (or, rather, what they shouldn't receive acknowledgement for) is acting as though they deserve a certain game, or acting as though they alone (or even as a vocal minority) have more claim to what D&D is than anyone else, the game's designers included, or acting as though they're being targeted by malicious marketing.
And, of course, I'm allowed to dismiss their viewpoint if I feel it is ultimately without merit.
The hints that they might call 5ed something else mean that they might be not wanting to make that mistake with 4ed players. Certainly I don't think I'll see youtube videos with a farcical dragonborn subtlety mocking the players that would like such a character as a PC, such as we saw with gnomes and their players,
Again, you didn't see that. You thought you did, but that was you inserting motivations that didn't exist in the first place. You know this.
Now, you're right, I don't think they will do the same satirical cartoon style of marketing this time around, because I think they will have learned their lesson: You cannot do anything that might be even accidentally perceived as the slightest bit hostile to any portion of the D&D community, or the backlash will be extreme and damaging. Information on 5e will be presented to us in the cautious, walking-on-eggshells form that we're already seeing, which is really a shame.
The thing is... no one felt miffed by the transition from 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd. There were plenty of players who stuck with the older versions for various reasons (worlds built for that logic, familiarity, investment, greater options with a fully developed older system than a core new one needing imports, etc.). The internet was not particularly civil, yet sky-is-falling didn't occur.
I just got done reading some forums for D&D and AD&D 1st edition. They are still burning Zeb Cook in effigy on those boards for 2nd edition, 23 years after the switch from 1st edition. I remember the flame wars on EN World (before it was called EN World) for the jump between 2nd and 3rd. The sky-is-falling did occur and is still occurring.
|
|
Of course, because 4e used the GSL, it will eventually be much more dead than 0e-2e.You'd be surprised what can be recreated under the OGL.
From my (admittedly sketchy) understanding of the legalities, the GSL basically repeals the OGL, at least in relation to 4e. So the OGL would NOT apply to 4e material.
|
|
I would argue that this group felt mostly entitled to D&D being a smooth continuity. Personally, 4ed felt like an entirely different game, one that reluctantly used aspects of the older games, while taking a lot of effort to make us feel bad for wanting that.
When used against 4e only, I find this position utterly laughable, since you can easily substitute in 3e and make EXACTLY the same argument.
|
|
The thing is... no one felt miffed by the transition from 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd.
Is this a joke post?
Many 0e players hate 1e.
Many 0e and 1e players hate 2e.
A HUGE number of 0e, 1e, and 2e players absolutely detest 3e, including Gary Gygax himself.
And I'm ignoring B/X, BECMI, and the Rules Cyclopedia, which each have fans that think that the succeeding versions (as well as the Advanced line) ruined the game.
The thing is... no one felt miffed by the transition from 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd.
Yeah?
No one?
There were plenty of players who stuck with the older versions for various reasons (worlds built for that logic, familiarity, investment, greater options with a fully developed older system than a core new one needing imports, etc.). The internet was not particularly civil, yet sky-is-falling didn't occur.
The internet was a smaller place in 2000. And a much smaller place in 1989.
Was the video with the gnome MEANT to insult people with gnome PCs? I'm sure it wasn't.
Then don't act insulted by it, unless acting insulted suits you better than being understanding.
But I don't think it was oversensitivity to read that into it. "Here, your PC isn't supported, and to rub it in, here's a guy doing the stereotypical dehumanized midget routine" was a legit terrible way to handle it though.
Dehumanized? Midget routine? The gnome was presented as a more "human" character than even the tiefling, who was actually representing a player race. The gnome had a pet, a mother he talked to, was excited about his new "job", etc. You are seeing things that do not exist. I don't know how much clearer anyone can be about that.
There was no slamming or craziness in previous versions.
Yes there was. You may not have seen it, but it existed. I've seen old websites from 2000 trotted out with pages-long rants on how 3e will ruin D&D, how it's nothing but a Diablo II knock-off, and how it'll never be anything more than D&D in name.
The dramatic changes to the ways that non-localized communities interact and the ways that companies interact with customers in the last decade have had a profound impact on the reactions we've seen. The world is not the same as it was in 1989, but it's funny how little the people have changed.
The game's designers? Didn't design 4ed (and I don't think 3ed for that matter).
Mike Mearls, the head of the 5th Edition team, has his name on the cover of one of the original 4e core books. Monte Cook, the 5e design team lead, is on the cover of the original 3e Dungeon Master's Guide.
It's no great shock to say that 4ed isn't D&D. D&D is older than most people reading this (not all), but certainly has roots in the 1970s, with transition guides to bring Zingbo the Barbarian all the way from 197X to 2007. But you have to redesign him for 4ed. Which was released in 2008 and presumably loses support in 2013. You can see how this isn't the same game, right?
Nope. I can see how a sub-group of D&D fans might use the excuse of "This isn't the real D&D," as a way of justifying their decision to stop playing D&D because of design decisions made during the development of the latest edition.
In addition, "Zingbo the Barbarian" would have been a fighting-man, not a barbarian, up until Unearthed Arcana was released in 1985. And no, direct conversion wasn't outlined for 4e. That doesn't mean you'd have any problem creating the Zingbo of 1980 in 4e.
This really looks like "copyright holders design a new game, capitalizing well known brand name" situation.
That's a really handy justification, that's for sure.
So, if your argument is that D&D purists should be ignored because Hasbro has the copyright and what they say goes... well, that's just wrong man.
"D&D purists" should be ignored because no one gets to define what is and isn't pure D&D. The very idea that a "pure D&D" exists to begin with is ridiculous, and the fact that a group of people have banded together to push the idea that a "real D&D" exists that is different from the "fake D&D" they hate (which doesn't have to be 4e, but that's the popular choice at the moment) should tell you quite a lot. People need an "other" in order to help support a fragile community. For a lot of D&D players, they chose 4e and those who play it as their "other" - if you played 4e, or were the company who made it, you weren't part of the same tribe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We know what a straw man is. You're just misusing it. But that's fine. We really don't need to convince you. You can scream, "STRAW MAN!" all you want, but the point stands: some people reacted like that, and it had an effect on how things were presented going forward.You're wasting your breath, Adamantine Dragon.
Apparently you don't know what a straw man is.
The "exchange" that was posted was a ludicrous presentation of a highly educated professional person crying and screaming like a baby (LITERALLY) becuase WotC tried to say "we changed the grapple rules."
That is an insane exaggeration of anyone's reaction. NOBODY reacted like that. NOBODY. It's not merely a straw man, it's an insanely ridiculous straw man. But that IS the "straw man" that was created to "show" how irrational PF fans are.
But you are right, I am wasting my breath. Fight the good fight for WotC Scott. Fight the people! Carry the load! Reverse the injustice!
I would argue that this group felt mostly entitled to D&D being a smooth continuity. Personally, 4ed felt like an entirely different game, one that reluctantly used aspects of the older games, while taking a lot of effort to make us feel bad for wanting that.When used against 4e only, I find this position utterly laughable, since you can easily substitute in 3e and make EXACTLY the same argument.
And there are some people who did. But overall, I think there's a pretty big difference in the proportion of people involved in the D&D community who felt that way compared to the number who feel that way about 4e. And that matters. It certainly seems to have an effect on the size of their respective markets and length of viability as the current D&D.
|
|
Fake D&D includes:
Swords & Wizardry
OSRIC
Labyrinth Lord
Lamentation of the Flame Princess
For Gold & Glory
Dark Dungeons
Pathfinder
and quite a few others as well
.
Real D&D includes:
Original D&D
AD&D 1e
B/X D&D
BECMI D&D
AD&D 2e
D&D Rules Cyclopedia
D&D 3.0
D&D 3.5
D&D 4e
.
Please note: I prefer some "fake D&D" to certain versions of "real D&D".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There has been a pretty sad amount of "Pathfinder: You're either with us, or against us" on these boards over the years, and in this thread in particular.
Scott, I don't know why you come bang your head against the wall in these threads, but more power to you.
I, for one, will definitely pick up the 5E core just to get a good feel for the direction they go with it.
|
3.5 didn't lead to the resurgance of D&D - 3.0 did. And that was produced by WotC. The OGL was very much a side-show in this as most of the original stuff was terrible. The flaws of the system really had very little impact to start with as they didn't (and probably still don't) impact on most people anyway. You are trying to rewrite history by suggesting that the increase in interest in D&D had nothing to do with WotC. It did, it had everything to do with it. The OGL maybe had an impact subsequently but I very much doubt they had anything like the effect of simply launching the new version of the game, especially after the collapse of TSR and the disappearance of D&D from the shelves.
The OGL also meant that the production of 3e-compliant materials didn't have to stop when WotC moved on to a new edition. This clearly has been detrimental to WotC. Whether this is bad for the hobby overall is debatable, but it is certainly bad for them.
I fundamentally disagree with you. 3.0 got traction because of the OGL, not in spite of it.
"Would 3rd Edition D&D -- which most people have forgotten was actually a bit of a risk at the time -- have been so wildly successful if there weren't immediately a shelf full of support products to choose from? I'm going to say no. At the very least, I think the brand would have taken longer to succeed than it did."
4E is failing as much due to it's not being OGL as due to any problem with the product itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4E is failing as much due to it's not being OGL as due to any problem with the product itself.
Agreed...but I'd go further and say 4E failed because it wasn't OGL in a post-OGL world. It's the combination of having gone open with 3E and then trying to pull it all back in 4E that has proven toxic for WotC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The irony here, being that Skyrim is like the 4e of the Elder Scrolls series. They stripped away the bulk of the number crunching and made a streamlined game focused on adventuring, introducing a new system(Perks) akin to 4e's Powers; and the hardcore Elder Scrolls fans have reacted pretty much like unhappy 3e fans did.
Personally? I love Skyrim. The series needed some fat-trimming and streamlining. I just miss spell-making.
Skyrim is the Pathfinder of the game.
Morrowind was the 3.0 (Solid Core that need fine tuning but sets up the conceptual feel), Oblivion was 3.5 (Strong mechanical fixes to the solid core, perhaps more bland but much cleaner) and Skyrim takes the best from both, removes things that were fun but broken, and expands on what is good.
I would say Dragons Age was 3.5 and Dragon Age 2 is 4e :)
|
|
4E is failing as much due to it's not being OGL as due to any problem with the product itself.Agreed...but I'd go further and say 4E failed because it wasn't OGL in a post-OGL world. It's the combination of having gone open with 3E and then trying to pull it all back in 4E that has proven toxic for WotC.
I don't think 3E beats out White Wolf if not for OGL. TSR was bankrupt, the brand was on the decline while White Wolf was serious competition, they were putting out video games and getting movie and TV tie ins and were even trying to move into the card market.
You didn't believe 4e was a commerical failure for wotc for the longest time ... and that clearly was the case.I'm sorry, but what? Even if the ICv2 data showed the complete market picture, which it doesn't, 4E has to be consider a commercial success. Being the #1 RPG for 3 years in a row and the #2 for 1 year is the kind of commercial "failure" that every other RPG company in existence would love to have. I thought about listing some examples, but since I can't think of a single game company that wouldn't want that it seems pointless.
A commercial failure is a product that fails to make a profit. 4E has been very profitable for Wizards of the Coast. One of the things Paizo does very well is produce a ton of books. I have nearly everything they produced that says Pathfinder on it. That takes up more book shelf space than my official 3.X D&D books. That's a ton of product in half the time. So if there were equal numbers of Pathfinder fans and 4E fans, and each bought exactly 1 book of everything produced, Pathfinder would show more sales. But that doesn't make 4E a failure; every book they produce makes a profit.
Just because they've decided that they can make more profit by launching a new game that expands their market doesn't mean their previous product was a failure. A failed line gets cancelled and shelved for a while.
4e can be a commercial failure if it didn't meet sells expectation WotC had for it.
From the posts on EnWorld by Ryan Dancey, 4e didn't meet expectations (going over the 50 millions mark) but still turned a profit.
Profit and expected profit aren't the same thing.
4e can be a commercial failure if it didn't meet sells expectation WotC had for it.
From the posts on EnWorld by Ryan Dancey, 4e didn't meet expectations (going over the 50 millions mark) but still turned a profit.
Profit and expected profit aren't the same thing.
I agree with you, but thought I'd point out that the $50m goal was for the brand (ie including board games, RPG, miniatures, novels, card games and so forth) not just for 4E. It still strikes me as odd that it excludes computer games - I wonder whether the (upcoming?) movie is factored in or out of that figure too.
The 5e announcement has forced me to finally 'jump off the fence'. I haven't played in 3 years, and I've obviously waited long enough.
Help me with this. How does Pathfinder/Golarion handle moving the timeline forward?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 5e announcement has forced me to finally 'jump off the fence'. I haven't played in 3 years, and I've obviously waited long enough.
Help me with this. How does Pathfinder/Golarion handle moving the timeline forward?
Hi Markus!
Good to see you here!
Come to the pathfinder side. We have beer!
The 5e announcement has forced me to finally 'jump off the fence'. I haven't played in 3 years, and I've obviously waited long enough.
Help me with this. How does Pathfinder/Golarion handle moving the timeline forward?
With few exceptions, it doesnt really. Most of the sourcebooks are written assuming that none of the adventures have happened - so it doesnt really matter what order you play them in.
There is an upcoming 'sequel AP' which will break this mould and the current AP is written several years after the first few, so it's not a hard and fast rule. In general though, they've steered clear of truly 'earth-shattering' events, so even if you pick up some of the early 3.5 sourcebooks they'll still be usable.*
* With the exception of the now redundant Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (superceded by the more up-to-date Inner Sea World Guide) and the even more outdated Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer (kind of superceded by both, plus the Inner Sea Primer.
So thus far, the world has been fairly static - the sources are all supposed to 'reporting' from pretty-much the same time-period?
Thats very interesting. I hadn't even considered that as an option, especially for such a prolific setting as Golarion.
Very interesting indeed.
Is there an actual date the setting is started at? I have to assume this sequel will have to give a new date, correct? And the setting will have officially moved forward as whole?
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this - the AP's have absolutely no interaction? So the 'order' of events doesn't matter, then? Do they simply not date the events in the AP's?
Although I'm really liking this, I do see it hitting an eventual wall. Sooner or later, timelines will have to be made official - or have they stated they will never do this?
I know this all seems off-topic, but for me, its not. I haven't been active on this site in over 2 years, and I am in situation ATM where I need to replace ALL of my gaming stuff, so its definitely decision making time. Up 'till now, my old stuff was all I needed (I bought one PF product and one 4e product, and had decided to stick with my 3.5 FR).
I appreciate the feedback.
They do have a date (and the timeline proceeds at the 'usual' one year per real year. So sourcebooks published now may refer to events not referred to in others. So the guide to Korvosa's timeline (published 2008) goes to 4708 whereas rule of fear (published 2011) goes to 4711. However, they do make a decent effort to keep these things discrete and given there are no 'worldwide upheavals' (outside of any particular DM's campaign) the new sourcebooks dont make old ones redundant as a general rule. I would be pretty confident that the upcoming sourcebooks (presumably with histories up to 4712) won't be referring to Korvosa being embroiled in some war in 4711 or anything.
Having said that, the current AP and the future "Sequel" AP (both set partly in the region of the intial three) do have an assumption that the earlier ones have already occurred (and presumably that some 'heroes' were successful).
So far, the timelines havent been important. This current AP would be weird if it happened before the first AP, but I cant think of any other "clashes" off the top of my head.
I agree with you, but thought I'd point out that the $50m goal was for the brand (ie including board games, RPG, miniatures, novels, card games and so forth) not just for 4E. It still strikes me as odd that it excludes computer games - I wonder whether the (upcoming?) movie is factored in or out of that figure too.4e can be a commercial failure if it didn't meet sells expectation WotC had for it.
From the posts on EnWorld by Ryan Dancey, 4e didn't meet expectations (going over the 50 millions mark) but still turned a profit.
Profit and expected profit aren't the same thing.
They leased the rights at the time, so they couldn't count computer game revenues.
They leased the rights at the time, so they couldn't count computer game revenues.I agree with you, but thought I'd point out that the $50m goal was for the brand (ie including board games, RPG, miniatures, novels, card games and so forth) not just for 4E. It still strikes me as odd that it excludes computer games - I wonder whether the (upcoming?) movie is factored in or out of that figure too.4e can be a commercial failure if it didn't meet sells expectation WotC had for it.
From the posts on EnWorld by Ryan Dancey, 4e didn't meet expectations (going over the 50 millions mark) but still turned a profit.
Profit and expected profit aren't the same thing.
Yeah, I just don't see why - lease revenue is still revenue. I guess Hasbro wanted to ensure they weren't financing someone else's marketting campaign.
|
|
So thus far, the world has been fairly static - the sources are all supposed to 'reporting' from pretty-much the same time-period?
Thats very interesting. I hadn't even considered that as an option, especially for such a prolific setting as Golarion.
Very interesting indeed.
Is there an actual date the setting is started at? I have to assume this sequel will have to give a new date, correct? And the setting will have officially moved forward as whole?
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this - the AP's have absolutely no interaction? So the 'order' of events doesn't matter, then? Do they simply not date the events in the AP's?
Although I'm really liking this, I do see it hitting an eventual wall. Sooner or later, timelines will have to be made official - or have they stated they will never do this?
I know this all seems off-topic, but for me, its not. I haven't been active on this site in over 2 years, and I am in situation ATM where I need to replace ALL of my gaming stuff, so its definitely decision making time. Up 'till now, my old stuff was all I needed (I bought one PF product and one 4e product, and had decided to stick with my 3.5 FR).
I appreciate the feedback.
I don't really see why the would HAVE to make major changes. In the end, all that really does is obsolete older products, ensuring that if you start at product N, you've very unlikely to ever purchase prducts A-M.
The APs are largely self-contained. Some of the modules, however, do have "sequels"...one set of three is pretty much a mini-AP.
The PFS also has some vague elements of a storyline progression / metaplot, especially with the emergence of the Shadow Lodge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been a pretty sad amount of "Pathfinder: You're either with us, or against us" on these boards over the years, and in this thread in particular.
Scott, I don't know why you come bang your head against the wall in these threads, but more power to you.
Sometimes, sometimes, the wall cracks. That, and I have an exceptionally thick skull.
Toward Golarion and AP events.
The APs were made to happen simultaneously or shortly following each other. There were part interactions between first three, but mostly a NPC that happened to be around (Shaelu Andorsana, the elven ranger is particularly popular, featuring in three APs already) or info (In Rise of the Runelords AP PCs happened upon a red herring in form of a letter to red mantis assasins ordering a disease that was refined to the plague that wrecked korvosa in Curse of the Crimson Throne). Jade Regent begins in Sandpoint where a statue of PCs from Rise of the Runelords stands (a gift of grattitude for saving the town from giant raiders). Other APs weren't in Varisia (well, each was somehwere else), so there wasn't much opportunity for interaction. The world-shaking events would follow if the PCs weren't successful mostly and the APs describe in a short article wahat would it look like and what would it take to remedy the situation (Second Darkness meteorite fall on centre of elven culture, ...).
This is a spoiler, such as revealing who really did frame Roger Rabbit.
|
|
Sometimes, sometimes, the wall cracks. That, and I have an exceptionally thick skull.There has been a pretty sad amount of "Pathfinder: You're either with us, or against us" on these boards over the years, and in this thread in particular.
Scott, I don't know why you come bang your head against the wall in these threads, but more power to you.
Finally we agree!
This is the Paizo message board, which is, not surprisingly pro-paizo.
I don't get all the sympathy for the poor misunderstood 800lb Gorilla in the room who changed versions so they could get out of the OGL to avoid sharing and are now doing exactly what many on here predicted, changing versions every few years.
Why are you loyal to WoTC, or more accurately Hasbro. I just don't get it.
Because you can support both.
Paizo do better in a world with a thriving WoTC.